When the Russians invaded and occupied Afghanistan, they set up a government to their liking, and had so-called elections to justify their chosen rulers. Anyone who was against their rule was labeled as a criminal and terrorist. As a result, the United States government trained and supported Muslim Mujahedeen insurgents (jihadists) in their attempt to overthrow the “occupying” power, Russia.

The tactics were simple: shoot, bomb, and destroy the enemy so as to drive them out of their homeland. History has now repeated itself, only the names and places have changed and the spin cycle has renamed the sides.

Now, the invading occupiers are the United States and the new “insurgents” (jihadists) are Al Qaeda, and Iraqis, yet they are comprised of the same group --- Muslims. And the occupiers are the same, a Western Government under a different name: The United States instead of Russia. And let us not forget that even the United States armies are also engaging in atrocities against innocent Iraqi citizens just as the Russians did.

So what’s the difference if this time the country training and supporting these new insurgents is Iran instead of a western power? And how dare we condemn Iran and Syria for supplying and training the "new" invaders and occupiers of Islamic lands. It’s only natural.

The point is that it is the duty of any country’s citizen to fight to the last breath in removing any occupying power from their homeland. That is the history of all mankind in all its wars and will not change for the sake of moral charades. Al-Qaida is not the only force trying to removing the American occupiers, Iraqis themselves are also in that pursuit.

So, how hypocritical of American leaders and their spin ministers to constantly portray themselves as the “good guys” and Iran as the unholy supporter of terrorists or “insurgents”. I’m sure that Russia was calling the United States the same when Russia occupied and promoted a regime change in Afghanistan. And we saw the result there --- a defeat for the Russians, including its once great army, and the start of the decline of the Soviet Union.

Nothing will be different this time either except for the name of the defeated. And nobody's comparing anymore but it IS the Crusades all over again. As with all invading armies, the United States too will leave as a defeated, spent force.

Indeed,to talk of “new imperialism” one must have in mind the old one as a reference point. Moreover, to examine the old Western imperialism one needs to go all the way back to Alexander the Great, then proceed to the Roman Empire, the Carolingian Empire, the so called Holy Roman empire of the Middle Ages, the expansionistic colonialist era of 16th century Renaissance which extends all the way to the 19th century: the Spanish empire, the French empire, the British empire, the Russian empire, the Portuguese empire, the Italian empire, Napoleon’s empire, Frederick the Great’s empire, Charles V’s empire, the Austria-Hungarian emprie, Mussolini’s empire, Stalin’s empire, Hitler’s empire, the list is endless but worth remembering, for those who have amnesia about their history risk repeating it; they may find themselves driving the brand new car called the EU, full speed ahead into the future with no rear-view mirror. That is a dangerous operation as both Vico and McLuhan have taught us. The phenomenon of imperialism and colonialism is indeed endemic in and even unique to the West. In my opinion, two recent books are essential for any kind of validcontemporary analysis: Jacques Le Goff’s The Birth of Europe, and William Pfaff’s The Bullet’s Song: Romantic Violence and Utopia